DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on December 11, 2023, July 15, 2025, and December 2, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Note: Several annotations, including changes to document numbers and country codes, have been made to the information disclosure statement dated December 2, 2025 to match the foreign patent documents submitted by Applicant.
Claim Status
Claims 3, 14, 15, 17 – 20, 27, 38, 39, and 41 - 44 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 2, 4 – 13, 16, 21 – 26, 28 – 37, 40, and 45 – 48 are examined here-in.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 4 – 8, 16, 24 – 26, 28 – 32, 40, and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinbrenner (US 7,560,494 B2).
Steinbrenner teaches surfactants of the general formula (I):
R – O – (A)n – (B)m – H
where R is a C8-alkyl radical, A is propyleneoxy, B is ethyleneoxy, n is an average value from 0.8 to 2.0, and m is an average value of 2.0 to 5.0 (abstract, column 1 lines 39 – 49). Steinbrenner teaches that surfactants of this formula have low foaming, biodegradability, and favorable wetting properties (column 2 lines 23 – 27). Steinbrenner teaches the surfactants may be used in crop protection formulations (column 4 lines 49 – 50).
Steinbrenner teaches a composition with 0.5 to 50% by weight a surfactant of formula (I) and from 0.5 to 30% by weight of a compound of general formula (IV):
R – O – (A)n – H
Where R is a C8-alkyl radical, A is propyleneoxy, and n is an average value from 0.8 to 2.0 (column 4 line 63 to column 5 line 8).
Claims 1, 2, 4 – 8, 16, 24 – 26, 28 – 32, 40, and 48 are rendered prima facie obvious over the teachings of Steinbrenner, because it is prima facie obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods, in order to yield predictable results. In the instant case, all the claimed elements (e.g., nonionic surfactants, alkoxylated compounds, ethyleneoxy units, propyleneoxy units, crop protection compositions) were known in the prior art (e.g., surfactants) and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(i)(a)).
Steinbrenner’s teaching for a composition with 0.5 to 50% by weight a surfactant of formula (I) and from 0.5 to 30% by weight of a compound of general formula (IV) (column 4 line 63 to column 5 line 8) reads on instant claims 1 and 25.
Steinbrenner’s surfactant of formula (I) in an amount from 0.5 to 50% by weight (abstract, column 4 line 63 to column 5 line 8) reads on the instantly claimed low-mole alkoxylate in an amount of 0.1 to 30 wt. % as recited in claims 1 and 25. Claimed ranges that overlap teachings of the prior art are prima facie obvious according to MPEP 2144.05(i).
Steinbrenner’s teaching of a compound of formula (IV) (column 4 line 63 to column 5 line 8) reads on the instantly claimed nonionic surfactant. Although Steinbrenner teaches a compound of formula (IV) in the amount of 0.5 to 30% by weight (column 4 line 63 to column 5 line 8), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have the necessary expertise to determine an appropriate amount of nonionic surfactant via routine experimentation. Routine experimentation is prima facie obvious according to MPEP 2144.05(ii)(a). A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include 70 to 99.9 wt. % nonionic surfactant as recited in instant claims 1 and 25 because Steinbrenner teaches the nonionic surfactant, which is propoxylated rather than ethoxylated, acts as an efficient defoamer (column 5 lines 46 – 49). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would reason that increasing the amount of nonionic surfactant of general formula (IV) to an amount from 70 to 99.9 wt. % as recited in instant claims 1 and 25, and 85 to 99 wt. % as recited in instant claims 2 and 26, would result in less foaming.
Steinbrenner’s teaching of a compound of formula (IV) (column 4 line 63 to column 5 line 8) reads on instant claims 4, 5, 28, and 29.
Although Steinbrenner teaches n in formula (IV) is an average value from 0.8 to 2.0 (column 4 line 63 to column 5 line 8), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have the necessary expertise to change n (or in the language of the instant claims q) via routine experimentation. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated for q to have an average value within the range of 3 to 50 or 5 to 20 as recited in instant claims 6, 7, 30, and 31 because Steinbrenner’s teachings suggest that propylene oxy groups contribute to de-foaming properties (column 5 lines 46 – 49). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would reason that increasing n (or in the language of the instant claims q) would result in a nonionic surfactant that foams less.
Steinbrenner’s surfactant of formula (I) in an amount from 0.5 to 50% by weight (abstract, column 4 line 63 to column 5 line 8) reads on the instantly claimed low-mole alkoxylate in an amount of 1 to 8 wt. % as recited in claims 8 and 32. Claimed ranges that overlap teachings of the prior art are prima facie obvious according to MPEP 2144.05(i).
Steinbrenner’s teaching that the surfactant of formula (I) is suitable for crop protection formulations (column 4 lines 49 – 50) reads on instant claims 16 and 40.
Steinbrenner’s teaching to mix a compound of formula (I) and formula (IV) in any order (column 6 lines 9 – 14) reads on instant claims 24 and 48. Steinbrenner’s teaching for a compound of formula (I) (which reads on the instantly claimed low-mole alkoxylate) in the amount of 0.5 to 50% by weight (abstract, column 4 line 63 to column 5 line 8) overlaps on the instantly claimed amount of 0.1 to 30% by weight as recited in claims 24 and 48. Steinbrenner teaches that the compound of formula (I) has low foaming and favorable wetting properties (column 2 lines 23 – 27) reading on the instantly claimed functional limitations concerning the ability of the mixture to wet a hydrophobic surface and the ability of the mixture to resist excessive foaming.
Claims 9, 10, 21, 33, 34, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinbrenner (as cited above) in view of Scovell (US 2005/0170966 A1).
Steinbrenner’s teachings are discussed above.
Steinbrenner does not teach motivation to minimize or exclude oxyethylene units in a compound of formula I.
Scovell teaches a missing element of Steinbrenner.
Scovell teaches surfactant compounds for agrochemical formulations (abstract).
Scovell teaches that oxyethylene units contribute to hydrophilicity, while oxypropylene units contribute to hydrophobicity (paragraph 0019). Scovell teaches that the amounts of oxyethylene and oxypropylene units can be varied to control they hydrophilicity or hydrophobicity of the compound (paragraph 0019).
The combination of Steinbrenner and Scovell’s teachings is prima facie obvious as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143(i)(a)). A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Steinbrenner’s compound of formula (I) to have only a minimum number of oxyethylene groups in order to make the compound more hydrophobic, which would be desirable for wetting hydrophobic surfaces. Scovell’s teachings that the relative amount of oxyethylene and oxypropylene units in such a compound can be varied to control the relative hydrophilicity or hydrophobicity of the compound would provide a person or ordinary skill in the art motivation to modify Steinbrenner’s formula (I) to include fewer oxyethylene groups and thus result in a more hydrophobic compound. The resulting compound would be hydrophobic according to Scovell’s teachings, thus yielding predictable results.
Steinbrenner’s teaching of general formula (I) R – O – (A)n – (B)m – H where R is a C8-alkyl radical, A is propyleneoxy, B is ethyleneoxy, n is an average value from 0.8 to 2.0, and m is an average value of 2.0 to 5.0 (abstract, column 1 lines 39 – 49) in combination with Scovell’s teaching that propyleneoxy groups are more hydrophobic and ethyleneoxy groups are more hydrophilic (paragraph 0019) reads on instant claims 9 and 33. A person or ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Steinbrenner’s formula I to minimize oxyethylene groups, i.e. decrease m (or in the language of the instant claims n) in order to make the compound more hydrophobic, as taught by Scovell. Increasing hydrophobicity of the compound would be desirable to promote wetting of hydrophobic surfaces.
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have the necessary expertise to determine an appropriate balance of propyleneoxy and ethyleneoxy units via routine experimentation. Routine experimentation is prima facie obvious according to MPEP 2144.05(ii)(a). As discussed above, fewer ethyleneoxy units (i.e. a range of 0 to 1 or 0 to 0.5 as recited in instant claims 9, 10, 33, and 34) would result in a more hydrophobic compound, which would be desirable to promote wetting of hydrophobic surfaces.
Claims 11 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinbrenner (as cited above) in view of Scovell (as cited above) and further in view of Schmid (US 4,780,237).
The teachings of Steinbrenner and Scovell are discussed above.
The combination of Steinbrenner and Scovell does not teach R is a branched C10 – C13 alkyl group.
Schmid teaches a missing element of the combination of Steinbrenner and Scovell.
Schmid teaches low-foam surfactant mixtures with an R group and ethyleneoxy or propyleneoxy repeating units (abstract, claim 1). Schmid teaches a formula (II) which has a straight or branched C8 – C18 alkyl radical as R group followed by ethyleneoxy and propyleneoxy repeating units (abstract, claim 1).
Schmid teaches the R group is preferably a straight or branched C12 – C14 alkyl radical (column 2 lines 67 – 68, claim 6). Schmid suggests that synthesis of fatty alcohols from natural fats or oils is preferable and that LS-cocosalcohol (which is predominantly C12 – C14) is a suitable precursor compound (column 3 lines 10 – 36).
The combination of Steinbrenner, Scovell, and Schmid’s teachings renders instant claims 11 and 35 prima facie obvious as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143(i)(a)). A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the combination of Steinbrenner and Scovell so that the R group is a branched C10 – C13 alkyl group because Schmid teaches straight or branched C12 – C14 alkyl radical groups are suitable for a surfactant having ethyleneoxy and propyleneoxy repeating units. Schmid also suggests that deriving the R group from natural fats or oils is preferable and that LS-cocosalcohol (which is predominantly C12 – C14) is a suitable precursor compound (column 3 lines 10 – 36). The combination of Steinbrenner, Scovell, and Schmid is prima facie obvious as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143(i)(a)).
The combination of Steinbrenner and Scovell’s teachings with Schmid’s teaching for an R group that is a straight or branched C12 – C14 alkyl radical (column 2 lines 67 – 68, claim 6) reads on instant claims 11 and 35. Schmid’s teaching that the alkyl radical has 12 to 14 carbon atoms overlaps on the instantly claimed range of 10 – 13 carbon atoms as recited in claims 11 and 35. Claimed ranges that overlap with teachings of the prior art are prima facie obvious according to MPEP 2144.05(i). Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include a straight or branched C12 – C14 alkyl radical because Schmid suggests that synthesis of fatty alcohols from natural fats or oils is preferable and that LS-cocosalcohol (which is predominantly C12 – C14) is a suitable precursor compound (column 3 lines 10 – 36).
Claims 12, 13, 21 - 23, 36, 37, and 45 – 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinbrenner (as cited above) in view of Scovell (as cited above) and further in view of Buchek (US 2020/0178523 A1).
The teachings of Steinbrenner and Scovell are discussed above.
The combination of Steinbrenner and Scovell does not teach the inclusion of a fatty alcohol ethoxylate surfactant.
Buchek teaches the missing element of Steinbrenner and Scovell.
Buchek teaches that agricultural compositions containing structured surfactant systems are able to combine agricultural actives with crop oils or non-aqueous adjuvants to form a stable composition (abstract).
Buchek teaches a structured surfactant systems comprising water and a mixture of surfactants that forms liquid crystal phases (paragraphs 0005 and 0008). Buchek teaches that the surfactant mixture should comprise at least one high HLB surfactant and at least one low HLB surfactant (paragraph 0008).
Buchek teaches the low HLB surfactant can be a fatty alcohol ethoxylate having a carbon chain length of 8 to 22 carbon atoms, as well as commercially available Bio-Soft surfactants (paragraph 0023).
Buchek teaches the high HLB surfactant can be an ethylene oxide / propylene oxide alkoxylate (paragraph 0024).
Buchek teaches water is included in the structured surfactant system in various amounts, including examples of 16.8 and 18.9 wt. % in table 6 (paragraphs 0008, 0051, Tables 2 – 4, 6, 9, and 13 – 16).
The combination of Steinbrenner, Scovell, and Buchek’s teachings renders instant claims 12, 13, 21 - 23, 36, 37, and 45 – 47 prima facie obvious as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143(i)(a)). A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the combination of Steinbrenner and Scovell to include a fatty alcohol ethoxylate surfactant in the composition because Buchek teaches fatty alcohol ethoxylates are suitable low HLB surfactants for a structured surfactant system and that structured surfactant systems are useful for suspending agricultural actives with non-aqueous compounds (abstract, paragraphs 0005, 0008, 0023).
The combination of Steinbrenner and Scovell’s teachings with Buchek’s teaching that water is included in the structured surfactant system in various amounts, including examples of 16.8 and 18.9 wt. % in table 6 (paragraphs 0008, 0051, Tables 2 – 4, 6, 9, and 13 – 16) reads on claims 12, 13, 36, and 37. Buchek’s examples of water in amounts of 16.8 and 18.9 wt. % fall within the claimed ranges of 0.1 to 20 wt. % and 0.005 to 50 wt. % as recited in claims 12, 13, 36, and 37. Claimed ranges that overlap teachings of the prior art are prima facie obvious according to MPEP 2144.05(i).
Although Buchek does not teach the structured surfactant systems are clear and isotropic, these properties are presumed to be inherent because the structure recited in the reference (i.e. a structured surfactant system having water, at least one low HLB surfactant, and at least one high HLB surfactant) is substantially identical to the instantly claimed clear, isotropic composition containing 0.1 to 20 wt. % water, a non-ionic surfactant, and a low-mole alkoxylate recited in claims 12 and 36. When compositions are physically the same, they must have the same properties according to MPEP 2112.01(ii).
Buchek’s teaching that a structured surfactant system should include water, a low HLB surfactant, and a high HLB surfactant (abstract, paragraphs 0005, 0008, 0023) where the low HLB surfactant can be a fatty alcohol ethoxylate having a carbon chain length of 8 to 22 carbon atoms (paragraph 0023) in combination with Steinbrenner and Scovell’s teachings for a surfactant that reads on a low-mole alkoxylate of formula R – O – (PO)m – (EO)n – H wherein R is a linear or branched C8-C16 alkyl group, PO is oxypropylene, EO is oxyethylene, m has an average value within the range of 0.5 to 4, and n has an average value within the range of 0 to 1 reads on instant claims 21 – 23 and 45 – 47.
The surfactant of formula (I) as taught by Steinbrenner and modified with Scovell’s teachings for fewer oxyethylene groups, in an amount of 0.5 to 50% by weight as taught by Steinbrenner (abstract, column 4 line 63 to column 5 line 8) overlaps on the instantly claimed low-mole alkoxylate in an amount of 2 to 8 wt. % as recited in claims 21 and 45. Claimed ranges that overlap teachings of the prior art are prima facie obvious according to MPEP 2144.05(i).
Buchek’s teaching for a low HLB surfactant that can be a fatty alcohol ethoxylate having a carbon chain length of 8 to 22 carbon atoms (paragraph 0023) reads on the instantly claimed C8 – C16 fatty alcohol ethoxylate surfactant as recited in claims 21 and 45. Although Buchek does not teach the fatty alcohol ethoxylate surfactant in the amount of 92 – 98 wt. %, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have the necessary expertise to determine this amount via routine experimentation which is prima facie obvious according to MPEP 2144.05(ii). A person or ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include 92 – 98 wt. % fatty alcohol ethoxylate in order to increase the solubility of non-aqueous compounds in the composition.
As discussed above, a person or ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Steinbrenner’s formula I to minimize oxyethylene groups, i.e. decrease m (or in the language of the instant claims n) in order to make the compound more hydrophobic, as taught by Scovell. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have the necessary expertise to determine an appropriate balance of propyleneoxy and ethyleneoxy units via routine experimentation which is prima facie obvious according to MPEP 2144.05(ii)(a). Fewer ethyleneoxy units (i.e. a range of 0 to 1, 0 to 0.5, or 0 to 0.1 as recited in instant claims 21 – 23 and 45 - 47) would result in a more hydrophobic compound, which would be desirable to promote wetting of hydrophobic surfaces.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Double Patenting over 18/432,482
Claims 1, 2, 4 – 13, 16, 21 – 26, 28 – 37, 40, and 45 – 48 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 31 of copending Application No. 18/432,482.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: instant claim 1 is drawn to a composition comprising 70 to 99.9 wt. % of a nonionic surfactant and 0.1 to 30 wt. % of a low-mole alkoxylate of the formula R – O – (AO)p – H, where R is a linear or branched C8 – C16 alkyl group, AO is oxypropylene (PO), oxyethylene (EO), or combinations thereof and p has an average value within the range of 0.5 to 7, the average number of PO groups is within the range of 0.5 to 4 and the average number of EO groups is within the range of 0 to 3.
Conflicting claim 1 is drawn to a composition comprising 0.1 to 30.0 wt.% surfactant, 0.5 to 90.0 wt. % active compound, 1.0 to 40.0 wt. % solvent, and 1.0 to 95.0 wt. % low-mole alkoxylate of the formula R – O – (AO)p – H, where R is a linear or branched C8 – C16 alkyl group, AO is oxypropylene (PO), oxyethylene (EO), or combinations thereof and p has an average value within the range of 0.5 to 7, the average number of PO groups is within the range of 0.5 to 4 and the average number of EO groups is within the range of 0 to 3.
The instant and conflicting claims differ because conflicting claim 1 recites the inclusion of 0.5 to 90.0 wt. % of an active compound and 1.0 to 40.0 wt. % solvent. The inclusion of an active compound and solvent within the conflicting claims reads on the “comprising” language of the instant claims.
The instant and conflicting claims also differ in the relative amount of surfactant and low-mole alkoxylate required. The instant claim recites 70 to 99.9 wt.% surfactant and 0.1 to 30 wt. % low-mole alkoxylate while the conflicting claim recites 0.1 to 30.0 wt. % of a surfactant and 1.0 to 95.0 wt.% low-mole alkoxylate. According to MPEP 2144.05(II)(a), changes in concentration will not support patentability unless there is evidence indicating the parameter is critical. Furthermore, the surfactant and low-mole alkoxylates of the instant claims are very similar to each other and could be considered interchangeable. For example, conflicting claim 6 recites the surfactant is an alkoxylated alcohol with the formula R – O – (AO)q – H, where R is a linear or branched C8 – C16 alkyl group, AO is oxyethylene, oxypropylene, or combinations thereof and q has an average value within the range of 3 to 50. These limitations regarding the surfactant read on the instantly claimed low-mole alkoxylate. As such, the range of 0.1 to 30 wt. % surfactant of the conflicting claims reads on the 0.1 to 30 wt. % low-mole alkoxylate of the instant claims. Similarly, instant claim 6 recites the non-ionic surfactant is an alkoxylated alcohol with the formula R – O – (AO)q – H, where R is a linear or branched C8 – C16 alkyl group, AO is oxyethylene, oxypropylene, or combinations thereof and q has an average value within the range of 3 to 50, which reads on the conflicting claim’s low-mole alkoxylate. Therefore, the range of 70 to 99.9 wt. % nonionic surfactant recited in the instant claim reads on the 1.0 to 95.0 wt. % low-mole alkoxylate of the conflicting claim.
Conflicting claims 2 – 31 and instant claims 2, 4 – 13, 16, 21 – 26, 28 – 37, 40, and 45 – 48 overlap in a similar manner.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
All claims are rejected. No claims are allowed.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Toriana N. Vigil whose telephone number is (571)270-7549. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sahana Kaup can be reached at 571-272-6897. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TORIANA N. VIGIL/Examiner, Art Unit 1612
/SAHANA S KAUP/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612